The most esoteric period?

[Scion7]

esoteric |ˌesəˈterik|
adjective
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest : esoteric philosophical debates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And as such, I think the "serial" or 12-tone music system, although beautiful and creating works of genius, is not followed by that many people in the serious-music fanbase.  How many people sit around listening to the more extreme vocal works such as Wozzeck, Lulu or Pierrot Lunaire ?  While the vast majority of, say, Ligeti's work is sure to clear a room pretty fast (and I count myself as one of those who take about 5% of his music and ditch the rest), he's/they are even less known than the originators, so I went with the Modern period.

[Marc]

What 'medieval' chant/music are 'we' referring at? Our local church choir? The Sixtine Chapel choir from Rome A.D.2014? British choristers from Oxford singing slick homophonic chant? The angelic voices of Anonymous 4? Or Soeur Marie Keyrouz and her ensemble(s)? Ensemble Organum? Hildegard von Bingen? Pre-Gregorian Byzantine chant?

How many medieval threads are to be found at GMG? How many members listen to recordings of 6th or 7th century chant (before the Gregorian codification), and discuss (the very rare) recordings on general classical music boards like this one, compared to music of Berg, Ligeti or Pärt?

Yes, Stockhausen could be called esoteric, but still, to most people here the sound of a helicopter is a recognizable sound (though not necessarily musical). Are early medieval 'musical sounds' as recognizable? I mean, there are many contemporary music lovers who cannot even stand meantone temperament. What about medieval pre-meantone stuff?

Just wondering.  (Or wandering?)

[Mandryka]

What 'medieval' chant/music are 'we' referring at? Our local church choir? The Sixtine Chapel choir from Rome A.D.2014? British choristers from Oxford singing slick homophonic chant? The angelic voices of Anonymous 4? Or Soeur Marie Keyrouz and her ensemble(s)? Ensemble Organum? Hildegard von Bingen? Pre-Gregorian Byzantine chant?

How many medieval threads are to be found at GMG? How many members listen to recordings of 6th or 7th century chant (before the Gregorian codification), and discuss (the very rare) recordings on general classical music boards like this one, compared to music of Berg, Ligeti or Pärt?

Yes, Stockhausen could be called esoteric, but still, to most people here the sound of a helicopter is a recognizable sound (though not necessarily musical). Are early medieval 'musical sounds' as recognizable? I mean, there are many contemporary music lovers who cannot even stand meantone temperament. What about medieval pre-meantone stuff?

Just wondering.  (Or wandering?)

These people who love contemporary music but who can't stand mean tone temperament. When you say they love contemporary music, I bet you're not thinking of Ferneyhough's Etudes or Carter's 3rd quartet.

It's like romanticism is this massive elctro-magnet at the heart of western civilization. A pull  to consoling music, with comforting links to tradition, the past. Easy listening.  And once that pull starts to exert its attraction, it's impossible to escape. I suppose it has to do with music as a form for mass culture, musicians have to get their music played so there's a drive to the lowest common denominator, to the middle brow.

Spectralists and  minimalists write sweet music. John Adams, John Luther Adams, Reich, Glass, Grisey, Dufourt, Murail, Dhomant, Ferrari, late Nono, late Stockhausen, Finnissy. And the movement to equal temperament may have been a search for sweetness. I don't know what this means for authentic performance of baroque organ music.

[amw]

There's a pull towards romantisism, consoling romantic music, with comforting links to tradition, the past. Easy listening.  And once that pull starts to exert its attraction, it's impossible to escape.

Not really impossible, just that some people become set in their ways as they get older, and lose interest in exploring new repertoire and unfamiliar ideas. There's no reason one shouldn't be able to enjoy both Christopher Rouse and Salvatore Sciarrino... I manage it, anyway.

Medieval & renaissance music is much more difficult to understand than the most "challenging" contemporary music I think, simply because of the way our concept of music has changed since then. Thirds and sixths used to be considered dissonances. Tonality as we know it didn't even exist until the early 17th century. The Phrygian mode is no longer so incendiary as to drive listeners into fits of passion, nor do I think most of them could tell the difference between it and the Hypophrygian mode which served to help calm them down. Etc. Plenty of reasonably involved listeners can barely tell the difference between Dufay and Palestrina, whereas the likelihood of someone mixing up Mozart and Mahler (or Brahms and Ferneyhough) is pretty slim.

[Florestan]

To all the points that have been made here for the medieval music, one more can be added: the worldview that inspired that music cannot be more different than ours.

It has been argued by the OP that the Gregorian chant is easy on the ear. Maybe. But being listened to in a concert hall or on a CD player has never been its focus. It was intended for the liturgy and served no other purpose. Listening to it as if it were music for music's sake, completely divorced from its theological background and functionality is exactly what the medievals did not do, and did not think about, neither the composers nor the listeners. To judge it solely by how easy or hard on ear it sounds today is to grossly misunderstand it.

[Karl Henning]

To all the points that have been made here for the medieval music, one more can be added: the worldview that inspired that music cannot be more different than ours.

It has been argued by the OP that the Gregorian chant is easy on the ear. Maybe. But being listened to in a concert hall or on a CD player has never been its focus. It was intended for the liturgy and served no other purpose. Listening to it as if it were music for music's sake, completely divorced from its theological background and functionality is exactly what the medievals did not do, and did not think about, neither the composers nor the listeners. To judge it solely by how easy or hard on ear it sounds today is to grossly misunderstand it.

An excellent and most apt point.

[EigenUser]

While the vast majority of, say, Ligeti's work is sure to clear a room pretty fast

Next time I want to be alone I will keep that in mind .

Sadly though, you are probably right. People don't bother to take the time to listen to things more than once (or even in full!) and get an idea of what exactly is going on. And I am being hypocritical here, too, because I am sometimes the same way. It's not an issue of intelligence that people have -- it's probably has more to do with patience vs. instant gratification.

The odd thing is that with all of these modern/contemporary works that we are labeling esoteric, I have found that friends who are non-classical listeners actually get interested (even excited) about them. On the other hand, the few friends of mine who are classical listeners seem to have more trouble with them. In both cases, I suspect that it is probably because it challenges preconceived notions (the former being neutral to negative ideas on classical music, the latter being positive).

[Karl Henning]

[...]
Arghh!  All this talk of complex music makes it seem like it has to be complex to be good!!

But everyone knows that is not the case.  It is a fallacy many sink into, for at least a time;  some sink in, never to re-emerge into the daylight.

And its insidious corollary is a fallacy, too:  that simple music is therefore trite, or at the least inferior to Complex Music.

In some cases, part of the problem is the intellectual laziness of patting oneself on the back for being able to appreciate Complex Music.  Not like those tossers who are happy with Simple Music!

[Ken B]

Now that Scion7 has let the cat out of the bag we should all be able to agree that Baroque cannot be a sensible or well thought out answer.

Between medieval and modern I go for med. it is far more strange and unfamiliar. Florestan and DavidW have made the points I'd make.

[Karl Henning]

esoteric |ˌesəˈterik|
adjective
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest : esoteric philosophical debates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And as such, I think the "serial" or 12-tone music system, although beautiful and creating works of genius, is not followed by that many people in the serious-music fanbase.  How many people sit around listening to the more extreme vocal works such as Wozzeck, Lulu or Pierrot Lunaire?

While you have a point, your post here underscores one of the many problems in this discussion.  In a way, music is like a chocolate cake.  No one cares if you understood the chocolate cake;  what matters is if you enjoyed it.

I cannot be the only listener for whom [ music which I enjoy ] is a larger set than [ music which I understand ].  (And, incidentally, speaking as a composer, I find some individuals whose eagerness to express how well they understand music, looms rather larger than their actual understanding.)

I've made the point (or nearly the point) elsewhere and more than once, but it bears repeating:  the fellow who invented "the composition of music with twelve tones," Schoenberg, didn't care if the listener perceived the source row:  what he cared about (always) was the music.  He didn't care if you "understood" the music, he wrote so that his music would touch the listener.

Now, something that is genuinely esoteric (as opposed to playing a role in the pitch world of the piece) is JS Bach writing a piece of exactly 41 measures, and why.  There's nothing wrong with that;  but it certainly fits the bill.

[Marc]

[...]
Now, something that is genuinely esoteric (as opposed to playing a role in the pitch world of the piece) is JS Bach writing a piece of exactly 41 measures, and why.  There's nothing wrong with that;  but it certainly fits the bill.

No no.
Exactly 14 measures, with exactly 41 keystrokes, that's esoteric.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I admit I've been out-esotericked!

[Florestan]

No no.
Exactly 14 measures, with exactly 41 keystrokes, that's esoteric.

Baroque, esoteric? Pffff....

[Karl Henning]

Well played!

[North Star]

Baroque, esoteric? Pffff....

Yeah, can't be..

baroque, adj. and n.
A. adj.
  Irregularly shaped; whimsical, grotesque, odd

[Marc]

[....]
Medieval & renaissance music is much more difficult to understand than the most "challenging" contemporary music I think, simply because of the way our concept of music has changed since then. Thirds and sixths used to be considered dissonances. Tonality as we know it didn't even exist until the early 17th century. The Phrygian mode is no longer so incendiary as to drive listeners into fits of passion, nor do I think most of them could tell the difference between it and the Hypophrygian mode which served to help calm them down. Etc. Plenty of reasonably involved listeners can barely tell the difference between Dufay and Palestrina, whereas the likelihood of someone mixing up Mozart and Mahler (or Brahms and Ferneyhough) is pretty slim.

That's sort of an explanation why I voted 'medieval', using James' description intended-for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

But I'm not theoretically informed enough to explain it like you - and others - can.

[jochanaan]

Periods aren't esoteric.  Composers and performers may be--but very few of them were so esoteric as to want to dispense with an understanding audience altogether.

With that in mind, I nominate as the most esoteric musician: Glenn Gould!

[Mandryka]

Florestan says that mediaeval music is esoteric because it has a liturgical function. It reminds me of when I started to listen to Frescobadi's Fiori Musicali - it was only by imagining the music in the context of a mass that it made sense, made sense as drama. But really, it's not very hard - not as hard as listening to an opera imaginatively, though a sound recording.

Marc says that there are people who can't even put up with meantone tuning, and amw says that we've grown so used to dissonances that the music has lost it's impact. I must say I find this whole area of dissonance very interesting, to what extent it should be smoothed out (is that what the composers were looking to achieve, with all that research into "better" tunings?)

As far as chant being easy on the ear, I found exactly the opposite when I first heard Marcel Peres do Machault, I was as jolted as when I first heard Lachenmann's Gran Torso. Gregorian Chant is another matter, that does seem a bit . . . bland - even in the context of a service it always seems to outstay its welcome to me.

[mc ukrneal]

Esoteric may not be the best term but I think most folks get the gist of it, and it got the discussion going .. I still disagree with the notion that medieval or renaissance are the most esoteric musical periods. It easily reaches & is enjoyed. It certainly isn't a "strange" or a "difficult" proposition for listeners/audiences .. I still think what we find within the 20th century is a better choice (more apt to the term esoteric), the historical record more follows suit too ..

In the case of medieval/renaissance, the music tends to have a uniformity of sound that people associate with it, and many DO find it strange. In fact, you seem to be dismissing it for some reason that I haven't fathomed.

[Karl Henning]

[...] Gregorian Chant is another matter, that does seem a bit . . . bland - even in the context of a service it always seems to outstay its welcome to me.

Interesting; not to me.  But then, I was in a choir whose annual routine for some years on Good Friday was to sing the plainchant setting of the St John Passion.